We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice. Not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes.

As you certainly remember, the short-sighted Prime Minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain promised the very same thing, just a single year before the most destructive war in history ripped Europe to sunders.

6 comments:

The President didn't promise "peace in our time." He was simply saying that peace in our time would require a constant advance of certain principles. No offense but this nitpicky, out-of-context semantics is a ridiculous way to criticize Obama - he's done enough as President to warrant serious and legitimate criticism; you should be discussing those in a rational manner. The irony, of course, is that even the cause you advance is just as destructive of those same principles Obama endorses. Moreover, the principles he alludes to, and those you'd probably advance yourself, are imperfect and require some serious recalibration - but this is probably lost amongst partisan hackery, such as that which you posted today.

The point, Mr. 10:46 a.m. Anonymous, is that Obama spoke approvingly of "peace in our time" and did so while talking about the U.S. role in the world. I'm not sure it represents his ignorance of history, though; it sounds more like a signal that he contemplates a very limited global role for the United States. Especially when read together with his strawman crack about avoiding "perpetual war."